Fellow TFL blogger Paul Gessing makes a great point here. Volunteers "work" for causes all the time, and the government doesn't outlaw that. Therefore, if working for $1 "clears" the market, why not allow that?

There is a difference between working and volunteering. Working drags along with it other values. It's a trade: time for money. There IS NO trade in volunteering; it's done because the volunteer believes that that his or her effort will enhance his or her life by enhancing the lives of others.

Say, for example, that a job entails being beaten by one's employer. For $10 per hour, an employer may -- at his or her whim -- hit the employee. Most would agree that that's abusive, I believe. (I'm not talking about football players who get "hit" in their line of work, either.)

It's not too much of a stretch to say that the $1 per hour job is like the $10 per hour "whipping boy" job. Whether I'd outlaw either is an open question in my mind. I'm merely suggesting that there is SOME mitigation surrounding the minimum wage issue.

Gessing's correct: This minimum wage issue is much ado about very little, in some places, nothing. It's pandering, mostly.

What I do find perplexing is those who suggest that the $10 whipping boy job is merely a matter for civil action. The rule of law is a highly elastic concept, one that can be applied in a number of ways. Overstatement for effect often has the effect of discrediting the advocate. That, I suggest, is the effect of freedomistas who say there should be no minimum wage. Part of me agrees, but I don't believe it's effective rhetoric to take that position.

-Robert Capozzi